Live data from Hacker News

The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

forbes.com

281–290 of 348 posts

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#281
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Passive income is taxed at a much lower rate than working income in the U.K, and that includes property rents (after paying expenses like a managing agent) Is that right? I thought that income from property rents (after paying expenses like a managing income) had income tax levied like any other income.

But honest day’s work income has an additional payroll tax which totals about 20% marginal for the majority of people (plot about 60/40 between employer and employee). Far better to be paid in shares.

Oh yes National Insurance Contributions. They’re a bit messed up imho.

The employee pays 8% to NICS on earnings between 12.5 and 50k. For income over 50k, it’s 2%.

The employer pays 13.8%, and some people assert the employee ultimately pays the cost through a lower salary.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we can tax houses, the main form of wealth for most people, proves that wealth taxes (levied on other forms of wealth) would be just fine.

Why have taxes at all if the government can just print money?

Taxes remove money from the economy to prevent demand-pull inflation.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#283
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in many cases this can't be paid without selling the asset. Ok. And? Why should someone get $5m for doing bugger all. If they were paid $5m for cleaning a car they would lose a fortune in tax.

They're not getting 5m, that's the point. They're inheriting an asset which may be valued at 5m. Like a farm, or a house, or a painting or whatever. Forcing the sale of family property or assets does not serve any good in the long term.

Forcing people to "Sell the family Farm" has been used by estate-tax detractors for so long that there are multiple special programs in place to ensure it never happens (interest-free loans, etc). Given that the current limits are over $13M per person or $26M/couple where zero tax is owed, I don't think this "woe is us" routine resonates any more.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#284
I’ve been trying to model using a SBLOC in a FIRE simulator to cover the gap between retirement below 65 and when 401k/social security kicks in versus selling and paying capital gains, and it looks like you come out ahead of selling stock like 90% of the time, but 10% of the time it’s much riskier and you go broke.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#285
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a difference?

Yes. In a margin loan, the "things of value" never leave the institution handing out the loan. The borrower buys stock, for example. And the institution giving out the loan has the right to sell whatever you bought to prevent losses on the loan, without your permission if certain conditions are triggered. In a loan backed by collateral, all the money can leave into some external account controlled by the borrower. To…

IBKR claims that you can establish a margin loan by:

“Withdrawing funds in excess of settled cash in the denomination of the currency being withdrawn;”

So as long as you have enough collateral it’s effectively the same?

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#286
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the issue is the money printing that tends to be going on. This strategy should be too risky to work. They'd be losing interest on the money each month and they'd go bankrupt in the long term due to eventually borrowing money into a market downturn. If interest rates are too low though then they wouldn't pay interest each month and the market will keep inflating - so the strategy will work. Basically, this looks l…

One of the best things when you are rich, you can buy when everyone wants to sell, and sell when everyone wants to buy. At one level of money you are not impacted by a market downturn or crisis. Many very rich people in Germany became very rich during or after WW2 - but they already were rich. Normal people just get poor in a crisis or market downturn.

> One of the best things when you are rich, you can buy when everyone wants to sell, and sell when everyone wants to buy.

Generally untrue, since most rich people hold their assets in what's being sold. There are a handful value investors left, who bother holding cash equivalents when PE ratios get absurd, but they are few and far between. Tech billionaires, in particular, are very unlikely to be sitting on much cash.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But who spent a higher percentage of their income? Everybody knows. That's because we tax income. And income, unlike spending is easier to muddle. You can always fabricate a loss or at least a temporary loss to avoid paying taxes on your income. It's harder to hide spending. > And who had vastly more opportunity to spend that in a place outside of that sales tax jurisdiction? It's just as easy today to move your pr…

> Taxing spending would also help with vast empires that cosist of inherited money Or we just finally actually tax inherited wealth like other kinds of income instead of giving wealthy many many millions of handouts and tax subsidies. > with no loopholes We've both shared examples of lots of ways one can have loopholes on spending money. If the standard is to find a way of "no loopholes", well, spending money outside…

> spending money outside of the tax jurisdiction away from the knowledge of the tax jurisdiction is a loophole.

Yeah, but how? How do you carry it or send it across the border? Cash? Gold? Good luck with that. You'd basically have to set up a smuggling operation for cash like people now do for drugs. With the risk of cash going missing and every step of the road. Becasue it's not hot and whoever steals it can use it as they please immediately.

> Expecting the wealthy are going to report their sales taxes on goods purchased overseas is as hopeful as back in the day states hoping people would report their online purchases.

I'm not expecting anyone to report that they bought something abroad. I expect their bank to to report they made a transfer abroad and deduct spending tax automatically.

> So those who make money on exports pay even lower tax rates than those working domestically, by design?

Yes, because exports are desirable for building wealth of a country. There's a single country on Earth that benefits from exporting not goods or services but dollars. That's because they are printing them for free and the world for one reason or another wants them. Any other country benefits from exports and it's an activity every government tries hard to promote to get purchasing power in the global economy for the stuff the country can't make themselves.

> And who in that "business of exports" actually gets that benefit?

That's the question. In case of VAT burden is transferred along the chain. In spending tax, tax credit could be similarily propagated. Everyone could have tax credit on their sales and tax to pay on their purchases. This already works for companies for purposes of VAT. All transactions between companies are tracked so purchases could be taxed and sellers can be taxcredited (the opposite of VAT). In case of individual people, they make many transactions that are not specifically linked to them (and we want to keep it that way for privacy). Their spending tax can be collected and paid by the companies that sell stuff directly to consumers. The tax credit for individuals could take a form of direct cash transfer from the governement budget to supplement their salary. There's of course incentive for this companies to not report their sales to customers and not pass the tax paid them by the consumers to the country budget. But that's the same thing as we have now that companies have incentive to hide sales income to not pay income tax on it so exisitng solutions to combat that should perform no worse than they do now (mystery customers, recipt lottery, comparing income+financing with spending).

Tax credit wouldn't be 100% of sales (because companies on average earn more than spend so they would never pay tax while operating normally) and transfers to individuals could be shaped freely. They could be associated with their salaries or not or a mixture of two. This way governement could very effectively promote specific economic activities with tax credits to companies and keep the poorest out of poverty with direct money transfers but also promote job seeking and career advancement by paying some addtional money to workers, less as their salary level approaches societally desired "middle class".

I don't have all the kinks ironed out. It's just an idea that I had about a month ago. I haven't written my own tax code. Yet. ;-)

> They'll get a tax break on their expensive foreign vacation while us plebs here pay full tax rates.

Well, if somebody operates a successful company, especially an exporter they should be rewarded. But the reward should be transparent and controlled and not up to their weaseling, tax dodging tax and fabricalting fictional losses. As you know they are already getting the handouts. If the system is tight and clean we can decide how much of a reward they actually deserve through a political process. I am aware that our political system is terrible for that, but it's terrible for what we have now too so that's beside the point.

The point of my idea is mostly to introduce transparency and control and vastly simplify and integrate the myriad of tax systems we use in parallel in one country. Income taxes, VAT, duty, social security, health premiums, captial gains tax, fuel tax, excise. All of that could be replaced with one framework of taxes on spending. This would also be good for migrating to economy that's not reliant on infinite growth because doing more with less would be promoted by the tax structure. You are taxed on what you use, you are 100% taxed on what you waste or consume.

> Having poorer people pay more effective tax rates than wealthier people doesn't strike me as fair.

That's not at all what I'm advocating for. Poor people mostly don't matter from tax perspective. If tax credit for them is set up in a way that they pay effectively very little or zero tax or even get money for nothing it wouldn't matter for the govermenet budget and there would be strong, popular opposition to lowering their tax credit as that would be direct hard cash on their accounts recieved every month. In modern system it's vastly easier to give tax cuts for the rich than for the poor and nearly impossible to give anything to the totally destitute.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quadruple tax on me there. We have a problem with that, too.

But like, why? It's a worthless point. If there were five taxes of one percent each versus one tax of 20% how is the one tax somehow better? Which one would you choose, getting taxed five times or once? It doesn't really matter that there's a FICA and an income tax and a payroll tax in the end, what really matters is the overall tax rate and if that's fair given some moral decision of fairness of sharing costs of soc…

> how is the one tax somehow better?

Local and state taxes generally actually help you. Your local infrastructure is maintained, and your kids go to schools funded by your taxes.

Federal taxes, however, are largely transfer payments from the productive to the unproductive, as well as funding wars in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with you.

It's pretty easy to make the distinction between "good" and "bad" taxes.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#289
post #12

(2021) This worked a lot better when interest rates were near zero.

For once the date of the article is rather relevant. But even then the simpler mechanisms are useful to be aware of if financial planning is a concern for you. And the most complex mechanisms completely irrelevant to the common mortal.

Re: The richest people borrow against their stock (2021)

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My gains are realized each year via property tax assessments This strongly depends on jurisdiction. In many (today I learned, not all) assessed value is explicitly different from market value.

The fact is though if you live in America are paying property taxes on your home, you are NOT hiding from the IRS the fact that you do - you are not saying "sorry, I don't really own this home and I won't be paying anything to you until such later time when my ownership will be revealed at the grand sale at which point I'll pay some taxes" With "unrealized" stock gains you are doing just that - hiding ownership so yo…

You do not pay property taxes to the IRS, or report the value of your property to them unless you sell it. Federal property tax is unconstitutional. It took an amendment for the feds to be able to do income tax, which has been broadly interpreted to include things like capital gains and income taxes.
Post reply on HN